RAJESH SAH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts, which engages consideration in the present writ petition are, that the petitioners, contends to be the owner of 21.061 hectares of land, which was claimed to be situated at village Chakmoti Bagh, Tehsil, Nainital. In the proceedings, which was held under the Forest Act, before the Forest Settlement Officer; as defined under Sub Section (2) of Section 2 of the Act, there has been a specific case of the petitioners that they have been recorded in the revenue records, as owner of the land and in support thereto, the petitioners had placed on record the Khatauni of the land pertaining to 1420 to 1425 fasli and under the strength of which the petitioners contends that since they being the recorded owners of the property in question, they would be entitled for to be paid with the adequate compensation, as was to be determined by the Forest Settlement Officer, under the provisions of The Indian Forest Act, 1927 as provided under Section 11 of the Act (hereinafter to be called as Act of 1927).

(2.) A notification being Notification No.6119/14-2-93-4(14) 92 dated 25.06.1993; was issued by the respondent State by invoking the provisions contained under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act of 1927, intending for the declaration of land as a reserved forest, which included the land of the petitioners, as to be a part of acquired reserve forest. As a consequence of intention of the State to declare the land as to be a reserve forest and which was inclusive of the land, which was recorded with the petitioners, the Forest Settlement Officer by invoking the provisions contained under Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 had issued a proclamation, and had invited the objections from the land owners by issuing a notification to the said effect on 10.07.1995. As a consequence of the notification, which was issued under Section 6 of the Act, soliciting an objection from the petitioners, as against the proposal of the State under Section 4, for declaration of reserve forest, in pursuance to the notification, which was issued under Section 4 of the Act, on 25.06.1993, admittedly, the records shows that the petitioners did file their objection, before the Forest Settlement Officer and as a consequence of it, it was instituted which was registered as Case No.37 of 1995-1996, with regard to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings for declaration of reserve forest, of the land of the petitioners, as referred above and for proceeding further for commutation as per Section 16 of the Forest Act, 1927. Section 16 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is extracted hereunder:-

(3.) The proceedings before the Forest Settlement Officer, under Section 16, for the purposes of determination of compensation, which the petitioners were entitled to receive, from the respondents, as a consequence of acquisition of their property, for declaration of a reserve forest, the proceedings were held on merit and consequently, by an order of 08.06.2016, as was rendered in Case No.37 of 1995-1996, the Forest Settlement Officer; had made a reference for deciding the controversy in the light of the provisions contained under Section 11(2)(ii) of the Forest Act, which was the foundation and the basis of the agreement between the petitioners, as well as the respondents and it was referred to be decided as per Section 20 of the Forest Act which is extracted here under:-